[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-13 11:39 EST --- I have just tested recompile without the .svn directories - it works. But I think I able to generate the header file directly from the spec file (both date and revision are there) and disable compiling and running the autorevision utility. I will create an updated version of SRPM. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-13 13:59 EST --- I agree that distributing .svn dirs is not optimal. So here is updated package Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks-1.0-0.9.20060909svn2965.src.rpm Updated spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks.spec - added workaround that disables interaction with subversion during the build - the script for retrieving the sources sets LANG and TZ and is used to package the sources included in the SRPM Jason, please, check on your system whether it still builds. On my FC4 it is OK. Then I will use this package as starting point for Extras. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-13 16:59 EST --- I saw the warning too. imported and built, FC-5 branch requested -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-12 12:27 EST --- You should use svn export instead of svn co to generate your tarballs. The .svn directories are useless in this context. Deleting all of the .svn directories from the tarball gives me a clean compare except for one file: diff -ur a/codeblocks/src/plugins/contrib/help_plugin/help_plugin.cpp b/codeblocks/src/plugins/contrib/help_plugin/help_plugin.cpp --- a/codeblocks/src/plugins/contrib/help_plugin/help_plugin.cpp 2006-08-19 04:03:12.0 -0500 +++ b/codeblocks/src/plugins/contrib/help_plugin/help_plugin.cpp 2006-08-18 10:24:58.0 -0500 @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ * Program URL : http://www.codeblocks.org * * $Id: help_plugin.cpp 2875 2006-08-18 15:24:58Z thomasdenk $ -* $Date: 2006-08-18 17:24:58 +0200 (Pá, 18 srp 2006) $ +* $Date: 2006-08-18 10:24:58 -0500 (Fri, 18 Aug 2006) $ */ #include help_plugin.h I guess you'd have to set LANG and TZ when checking out as well. Or perhaps there's a flag to svn that could be used to suppress that kind of expansion. In any case, this isn't a big deal although when the time comes to check this package in, you should use a tarball generated with svn export to get rid of the needless .svn directories. The %configure line looks much simpler now. /usr/lib64/codeblocks is properly owned now. The desktop file looks to be properly installed. I recall that Rex is trying to get changes made to the desktop file policy with regards to using --vendor fedora but at this point I don't know what the fuss is about and what you have done is in accordance with the current packaging guidelines. So all of the issues I had are fixed; just be sure to get rid of those .svn directories in your tarball. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: codeblocks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 06:10 EST ---
Updated SRPM URL:
http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks-1.0-0.8.20060909svn2965.src.rpm
Updated spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks.spec
- update to revision 2965
- use %%configure macro
- properly install the desktop file
- update the mime database after install and uninstall
- do not own only %%{_libdir}/codeblock/plugins, but also %%{_libdir}/codeblock
- added a script for retrieving and packing a revision from the SVN repo
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-09 19:55 EST --- I can't check the upstream source. Could you provide a quick script in the package for grabbing the source from the repository and generating the tarball? I know if won't compare the same due to directory timestamps but I can at least do a recursive diff. Any reason why you don't use the %configure macro instead of listing out that long configure line? /usr/lib64/codeblocks seems to be unowned. You don't seem to install the desktop file properly. Generally you should use desktop-file-install. X source files match upstream (can't check) * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has only ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: codeblocks-1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6.x86_64.rpm libastyle.so()(64bit) libautosave.so()(64bit) libclasswizard.so()(64bit) libcodeblocks.so.0()(64bit) libcodecompletion.so()(64bit) libcompiler.so()(64bit) libdebuggergdb.so()(64bit) libdefaultmimehandler.so()(64bit) libscriptedwizard.so()(64bit) libtodo.so()(64bit) codeblocks = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libcodeblocks.so.0()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_baseu_net-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu_net-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6.3)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) codeblocks-contrib-1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6.x86_64.rpm libbyogames.so()(64bit) libcb_koders.so()(64bit) libcodesnippets.so()(64bit) libcodestat.so()(64bit) libdragscroll.so()(64bit) libenvvars.so()(64bit) libexporter.so()(64bit) libhelp_plugin.so()(64bit) libkeybinder.so()(64bit) libprofiler.so()(64bit) libwxsmith.so()(64bit) codeblocks-contrib = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6 = codeblocks = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6 libcodeblocks.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_baseu_net-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) codeblocks-devel-1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6.x86_64.rpm codeblocks-devel = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6 = codeblocks = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6 libcodeblocks.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths; ldconfig is called as necessary and unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * package is not relocatable. X owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * header files are content used by the package. * pkgconfig file is in the -devel package. * no libtool .la droppings. X desktop file does not seem to be installed properly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-04 07:16 EST --- Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks-1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.src.rpm Updated spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks.spec Changes: - updated to revision 2944 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 05:02 EST --- Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks-1.0-0.6.20060820svn2882.src.rpm Updated spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks.spec Changes: - updated to revision 2882 - added missing Requires: pkgconfig for devel subpackage -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 03:58 EST --- Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks-1.0-0.4.20060812svn2840.src.rpm Updated spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks.spec Changes: - make setup section quiet - use only tabs for indentation - define libdir in configure -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 15:37 EST --- Seems to be some 64-bit problems: RPM build errors: File not found by glob: /var/tmp/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/*.so.* File not found: /var/tmp/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/codeblocks/plugins File not found: /var/tmp/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/codeblocks/plugins/libastyle.so (and so on for many files). Looks like the upstream source wants to install into /usr/lib regardless of what configure is told. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: codeblocks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 16:02 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Seems to be some 64-bit problems:
RPM build errors:
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/*.so.*
File not found:
/var/tmp/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/codeblocks/plugins
File not found:
/var/tmp/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/codeblocks/plugins/libastyle.so
(and so on for many files).
Looks like the upstream source wants to install into /usr/lib regardless of
what
configure is told.
Should be a libtool issue I think as the Makefile.am files are very clean and
all are used on the build system to create the executable files. Can you check
how is defined libdir in Makefile.in and Makefile in some src/plugins/ subdir? I
have
libdir = @libdir@/@PACKAGE@/plugins in Makefile.in and
libdir = ${exec_prefix}/lib/codeblocks/plugins in Makefile
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 16:40 EST --- I have updated the spec file with libdir defined when running configure. Can you try to rebuild the sources using this spec file? I will upload the SRPM tomorrow. Updated spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 16:58 EST --- No problem; I rebuilt with that spec and everything seems OK. Aside from the rpmlint warnings that you indicated were false positives (which I agree with, BTW), there is: W: codeblocks setup-not-quiet W: codeblocks mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (You have to run rpmlint on the SRPM to see this.) The former is IMHO not a blocker but can be cured by passing -q to %setup. The latter can be fixed by deciding whether you're going to use tabs or spaces for indentation and stick with it. (You mostly use tabs but use spaces in %package devel and the Requires: bit of %package contrib.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 01:52 EST --- Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks-1.0-0.2.20060812svn2840.src.rpm Updated spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks.spec Changes: - added autotools to BR - changed Release per NamingGuidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 03:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) This failed to build for me: + chmod a+x bootstrap acinclude.m4 src/update + ./bootstrap ./bootstrap: line 43: libtoolize: command not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.76866 (%build) Looks like a BuildRequires: libtool is needed. OK, BR for all autotools are needed :-) Also, I note that the naming guidelines require that a SVN checkout be dated instead of using the revision number, but I'm not sure that requirement makes much sense. I think that for SVN repos there should be possible to use revision number. With CVS there is no such possibility so the dates must be used. It makes also possible to track the official nightly build which use revision numbers. Is there a reason why you disabled parallel make? If so, you should note that in the spec. (This takes ages to build single-threaded.) It is only an omission from some bug hunting. Ah, the build just failed again: /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_create_for_bitmap' /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_create' /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_set_size' Not sure what to do at this point. Perhaps a missing BR: on some X or cairo library? I have no idea too, all required libraries should be taken to the linker via wxWidgets libraries. Is this from x86_64 rawhide? How much up-to-date was the rawhide? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 03:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) + chmod a+x bootstrap acinclude.m4 src/update + ./bootstrap chmod a+x'ing acinclude.m4 doesn't make any sense. acinclude.m4's are not executable. They are source files. Cut'n'paste from upstream, fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 03:41 EST --- Ah, the build just failed again: /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_create_for_bitmap' /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_create' /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_set_size' Not sure what to do at this point. Perhaps a missing BR: on some X or cairo library? I have no idea too, all required libraries should be taken to the linker via wxWidgets libraries. Is this from x86_64 rawhide? How much up-to-date was the rawhide? It builds clean on rawhide from 20060810 on i386, now I am updating my build system and will try it later today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 05:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) Ah, the build just failed again: /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_create_for_bitmap' /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_create' /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_set_size' Not sure what to do at this point. Perhaps a missing BR: on some X or cairo library? I have no idea too, all required libraries should be taken to the linker via wxWidgets libraries. Is this from x86_64 rawhide? How much up-to-date was the rawhide? No linking problem on just updated rawhide, so it could be a x86_64 problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 06:41 EST --- I think that for SVN repos there should be possible to use revision number. With CVS there is no such possibility so the dates must be used. Not true. Surely you could check out from CVS using a branch tag or revision. Please use the date for SVN checks, too, and optionally put the revision number at the right. Like: codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060731svn.src.rpm or: codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060731svn2824.src.rpm or: codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060803cvs.src.rpm There is no necessity to squeeze SVN revision numbers or CVS tags/revs into the package Release. Instead, add a comment in your spec on how to check out the included source code. The most interesting information about pre-releases is the date, which is independent from whether the source is maintained in SVN or CVS or a different VCS. Further info: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 07:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) I think that for SVN repos there should be possible to use revision number. With CVS there is no such possibility so the dates must be used. Not true. Surely you could check out from CVS using a branch tag or revision. I meant situation between tagged revisions as the tags in CVS are not usually created after every commited change. Please use the date for SVN checks, too, and optionally put the revision number at the right. Like: codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060731svn.src.rpm or: codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060731svn2824.src.rpm OK, I will use the above (date + rev) or: codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060803cvs.src.rpm There is no necessity to squeeze SVN revision numbers or CVS tags/revs into the package Release. Instead, add a comment in your spec on how to check out the included source code. The most interesting information about pre-releases is the date, which is independent from whether the source is maintained in SVN or CVS or a different VCS. Using the date versus revision depends on the the style of upstream development. And I see using the revisions useful as the revision is exact identification of the development state and should be visible. When placed in the spec file, it would be hidden from most users. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 00:03 EST --- This failed to build for me: + chmod a+x bootstrap acinclude.m4 src/update + ./bootstrap ./bootstrap: line 43: libtoolize: command not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.76866 (%build) Looks like a BuildRequires: libtool is needed. Also, I note that the naming guidelines require that a SVN checkout be dated instead of using the revision number, but I'm not sure that requirement makes much sense. Is there a reason why you disabled parallel make? If so, you should note that in the spec. (This takes ages to build single-threaded.) Ah, the build just failed again: ++ -O2 -ffast-math -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -DCB_PRECOMP -Winvalid-pch -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/codeblocks app.o appglobals.o compilersettingsdlg.o crashhandler.o dlgabout.o dlgaboutplugin.o environmentsettingsdlg.o main.o prefix.o printdlg.o scriptconsole.o splashscreen.o startherepage.o -pthread -L/builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src/src/wxAUI /builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src/src/wxAUI/.libs/libwxaui.a -L/builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src/sdk /builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src/sdk/.libs/libcodeblocks.so -lwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6 -lwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6 -lwx_gtk2u_html-2.6 -lwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6 -lwx_gtk2u_core-2.6 -lwx_baseu_xml-2.6 -lwx_baseu_net-2.6 -lwx_baseu-2.6 -lpthread -ldl -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/lib /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_create_for_bitmap' /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_create' /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0: undefined reference to `cairo_xlib_surface_set_size' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[3]: *** [codeblocks] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src/src' make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src/src' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/codeblocks/src' make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.41997 (%build) Not sure what to do at this point. Perhaps a missing BR: on some X or cairo library? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-13 00:56 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) This failed to build for me: + chmod a+x bootstrap acinclude.m4 src/update + ./bootstrap chmod a+x'ing acinclude.m4 doesn't make any sense. acinclude.m4's are not executable. They are source files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
